Liberty Squandered

Medical marijuana in Florida: confronting the scare tactics

                I am a Florida resident. There has recently been a successful effort to get a proposed state constitutional amendment, amendment 2 legalizing medical marijuana, on the ballot which will be voted on during the 2014 general election.  This has sparked significant controversy in the state as to what the precise results of this initiative will be and speculation as to what the ultimate intent of gaining passage of medical marijuana is.  I will make the effort to confront popular opposition and hyperbole in reference to this topic which I find to be largely scare tactics.

                Jeb Bush, former Florida governor and potential 2014 presidential candidate, stated earlier in the year that legalization of medical marijuana will hurt the state’s “family friendly” reputation.  This is an interesting observation that smacks of both ignorance of prescription drugs and detachment from medical conditions that can be helped with the use of this treatment.  First, perhaps Bush and others are unclear as to the wide array of opioids and other controlled substances which are readily available for medicinal use?  Maybe Mr. Bush and his contemporaries--which share his trepidation of medical use of a drug like marijuana--has not heard of morphine, oxycodone, methadone, codeine, hydromorphone, fentanyl, and Xanax; all drugs which can be safely stated as being much strong than marijuana.  I guess I have not heard of all the families boycotting Disney and Universal Studios when Orlando has a burgeoning drug problem with hydrocodone (a prescription drug) being one of the most popular illegal recreational choices. 

                Speaking further on the attempt in Florida to “create a family-friendly destination for tourism and a desirable place to raise a family or retire” Bush continued by stating that “allowing large-scale, marijuana operations to take root across Florida, under the guise of using it for medicinal purposes, runs counter to all these efforts (Adams, Reuters, 2014).”  I suppose Jeb Bush has also not heard that there is no such thing as a marijuana shortage in the state.  In fact, our government, in all its wonderful glory cannot even keep drugs out of prisons; but, let us make certain that a cancer or epilepsy patient doesn’t get their hands on it…it will be the end for sure!!!

                A local state representative, Rep. Broxson, stated recently that legalization of medical marijuana is just the first step towards legalizing it recreationally; an assertion I have heard several times from state legislators.  Let us re-examine the list of controlled substances already listed above, which have all been legal (medicinally) for several years.  Then I would like someone to tell me which of those drugs (or their street alternatives, i.e. heroin) have been legalized because sick people are allowed to use them for medical reasons?  Hold on…you mean the answer is zero?  How can that be?  Medical use is clearly the gateway towards legalization…right??  Hmmm, perhaps not.

                Finally, Mr. Broxson thought it necessary to mention that we should not legalize such an option because it is against federal law.  We must keep in mind that Mr. Broxson fancies himself a constitutionalist, so my question is where in the US Constitution do the States give the federal government the power to regulate such things?  (Hint:  it doesn’t).  The states created the federal government with a certain amount of power that was limited, not the other way around.  I think it would be refreshing to hear people that claim to be students of the Constitution and champions of State’s rights not cowering to the claims to power lawlessly made by the federal government.  It is possible that if true defenders of the Constitution had been around 80 years ago, our political climate may be much more inclined towards actual justice and a moral (not to be confused with use of the law for legislating morality) use of the law than it is today. 

                To deny people the use of a drug that can make a difference in a significant chronic or critical condition is unambiguously immoral; and borders on cruelty.  Those of us who claim to champion liberty and the American ideal should exercise caution in using the government as an implement of force for controlling behavior that might be contrary to our own beliefs and mores; particularly when that use of force can result in unnecessary harm to another individual.  Keep in mind that if we buy into the (anti)logic that keeping marijuana illegal for medical use because of the risk of people using it illegally for recreation is not appreciably different than the argument that guns should be illegal so criminals don’t hurt others.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: The great lie that birth control has become somehow illegal

          An interesting, although not surprising, situation has developed in the wake of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. whereas liberal-socialists have entered a new and even more irrational line of propaganda.  In short, the Supreme Court determined that closely held businesses cannot be forced to pay for coverage which includes post-fertilization birth control (e.g. the morning after pill) under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  Instead of engaging in any kind of honest assessment of the outcome of the case, the socialists have launched a campaign wrought with lies in an attempt to make the mindless populace believe women’s birth control has all the sudden become either illegal or under the direct control of employers.

          Many times the propaganda machine will only exaggerate reality (albeit in a fantastic way); however, they have reached a new low in creating a pseudo-reality which is not remotely representative of fact.  Somehow the idea that if someone else wishes to not pay for something, people have been “denied access” to it is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard.  That is what this is all about.  It is not whether an employer is controlling health decisions (as they are clearly not); it is whether people should be able to coerce others to pay for (or provide) items they wish to consume.  The only access to anything being denied is unfettered access to an employer’s bank account.  Let me attempt to make this as clear as possible:  “you do not have the right to other people’s stuff!”  This would be called theft and it is illegal for a good reason.  Political plunder is no less immoral than piracy, gang activity, or white collar crime. 

          This brings to mind a passage written by Frederic Bastiat in The Law:

“…Unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions.  And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters.  The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose.  The law has been used to destroy its own objective:  It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights [life, liberty, and property] which its real purpose was to respect.  The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others.  It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder…The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes:  stupid greed and false philanthropy.”

Both of those reasons are at play here.  “Stupid greed” compels people to feel entitled to something which they have no rightful basis for coercing out of others; in this case some forms of post-conception birth control.  “False philanthropy” drives those who encourage this idiocy (politicians) and those who support such claims.

          Additionally, we seem to ignore the reality that pregnancy is not some sort of mystery.  While there seems to be little consensus on when, precisely, humans became specifically aware that sex was the cause of pregnancy, it does seem to be rather clear that humans have known for a very, very long time (like several thousand years at least).  Therefore, I would argue that since pregnancy is totally avoidable for anyone who cannot afford birth control (which also means they cannot afford children, by the way) then the argument that birth control must be supplied or people will get pregnant only is evidence that there are a significant amount of stupid people.  These people’s primary problem, particularly those who are adults, is not a lack of birth control; it is instead the inability to compare the costs of a condom to the cost of a child.  Of course, with the nanny state and its willingness to engage in theft from one citizen to buy votes…hmmm, I mean help others; I guess kids really can be profitable and perhaps they have done the math.

Three-fifths compromise...was it truly racist?

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

             The preceding passage is from Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and gives a guideline for how both the number of representatives in the House of Representatives and taxes shall be apportioned.  The underlined portion is of particular importance for our topic as it has been the source of much historical misinformation.   It is likely that what you learned about this part of the Constitution while in high school is incorrect, or at least rather misleading; then again, much of what you learned about the Constitution is highly inaccurate.  The common reaction or presumption about the so-called three-fifths compromise is that it was a tool used to control slaves in the United States and is evidence that white Americans thought that blacks were only 3/5 human.  There was a segment of society that thought such an absurd thing; however, this portion of the Constitution is not indicative of it.  In fact, anyone that is a direct descendant of someone bound in slavery ought to be truly thankful that this concept made it into the Constitution. 

            I know this idea is counter to what our popular culture and politicians lead us to believe of the framers of the Constitution; but, on the bright side, it is hardly the first time politicians have lied or obfuscated reality.  We must first understand that at this point in the Constitutional Convention there was significant concern that the union might yet dissolve making the former colonies a veritable smorgasbord of resources and increasing production for the European powers to come and dine from.  Furthermore, there was existing contention between the northern states and southern states regarding the institution of slavery and its moral repugnance (my description).  However, many at the convention were well aware that an attempt to end the practice in the Constitution would result in a fracture in the union and certain conflict both with outside powers and between the states themselves.  Since protection, or national security in today’s parlance, was the primary impetus of the union, it was imperative that the slavery question be held to another day.  Otherwise, slavery would have continued in the divided territories anyhow. 

           On the other hand, it was important to the north that slavery not be allowed to remain a perpetually growing enterprise and that southern states would not be able to drive the congressional boat because they could count slaves for representative reasons without any intention to allow them to vote--or engage in any other sort of self-destiny.  The three-fifths rule was not a new concept designed for the Constitution and some in the northern states were concerned the three-fifths number was too high.  In fact, some southern delegates briefly attempted to argue for the counting of their slaves as whole persons.  I will give you a second to take another look at that last sentence.  The slave owners wanted the slaves to count as whole persons for the purpose of representation while the anti-slavery northern delegates would have preferred a downgrading.  If racism was the motivator for this provision, would not the tables have been reversed?  Of course they would have. 

            So, why did the anti-slavery north support counting slaves as less than a whole person while the pro-slavery south wanted them counted completely?   Power; specifically political power, which likely would have allowed slavery to last long beyond when it was eradicated in America in the 1860s.  If the slaves of the south would have been counted as whole persons the balance of the House of Representatives would have fallen significantly toward the southern states and would have likely caused the practice to perpetuate and spread throughout the new territories.  The south was low on population (non-slave) compared to the north, but the volume of slaves pushed their numbers well beyond those of the north.  Some in the north held concerns that even with a three-fifths rule the south would just import more slaves as a way to gain control of the House; and, because of the Electoral College, probably the presidency in most cases. 

            The three-fifths compromise actually helped stem the spread of slavery into the west through legislative domination.  It seems reasonable to assume that with a large legislative mandate created by a complete counting of slaves in the south, the practice would have had enough power to live well beyond the 1860s.  Regardless of the accusation by those who profit from the “racial” divide; there is no inherent racism in the three-fifths clause.  If someone tells you there is you should either question their knowledge on the matter or their motives.  Perhaps we should consider what Dr. Martin Luther King had to say about the framers of the Constitution and their glorious experiment in liberty:

“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (Yeah), they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed to the ‘Unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’”

 

Federalist #78 and the Constitutionality of Judicial Review

           In Federalist #78, Hamilton (1999) efforts to explain the importance of the relative permanency of judicial tenure as prescribed by the new Constitution.  This question is still relevant today because citizens continue to question the purpose behind lifetime appointments to the bench.  In explaining the position of the federalists, Hamilton (1999) also touches on how the judiciary may (and possibly should) interpret their own important role in the separation of powers and how they may contribute to the balancing of the three branches of government.   

            Federalist #78 very much lends itself to the idea of judicial review; in both how judicial review became a reality and why it is necessary.  Just as the legislature was designed to represent the people (House of Representatives) and the states (Senate), and the executive was designed as the executor of law and the protector of the republic (as commander-in-chief); the judiciary was designed to protect the Constitution, and thus the union, from democracy.  With the historical shifts toward democracy by the 17^th Amendment and the decision by the states to allow Electoral College delegates to be chosen by the people; the role of the judiciary to be the last line of defense for the “minority,” and the Constitution itself, from a tyranny of the majority may be more important now than ever.

            It might seem foreign in present times for many citizens to believe the framers would see a need to protect the United States from democracy; however, with the idea of the U.S. being a country of laws and not of men came the necessity to marginalize the influence of a majority (or even a mere plurality) on the nation as a whole.  Hamilton was well aware of the importance judicial tenure would have on this endeavor.  Lifetime appointments can span relatively long periods of time (politically); minimizing the likelihood that temporary shifts in the politics of governing which could drastically change the course of the nation and render the Constitution to a position of minimal importance.  The framer’s intent of shielding the Constitution is supported by the difficulty in amending the document, which is the legislative branch’s only legal path to supersede the judiciary in cases in which the Court strikes down legislation.

            Hamilton’s extensive explanation of judicial tenure illustrates its importance.  The fact that Hamilton devoted the entirety of Federalist #78 to such a seemingly minute topic such as tenure is evidence as to why the judiciary’s own autonomy is paramount in protecting the design of the union, and the Constitution itself, from usurpation by the other two branches.  As he shifts from one justification to another, the common theme of Constitutional protection remains at the fore of his argument.  As often as the framers are identified as lacking foresight into changes of circumstances such as technology, Hamilton illustrates clearly how they had a complete understanding of the potential for changes in ideas.  Placing the judicial branch “out of reach” of the people was the way the framers determined they may best protect the idea of the republican form of government they had designed and, arguably, protect the people themselves most completely.

Hamilton (1999) first addresses how judges may hold their offices during good behavior.  This benchmark of judicial behavior is designed to enable the judiciary to be a defense against “encroachments and oppressions of the representative body” (p. 433).  This is the first indication as to why the judiciary, by length of term, is intended to be removed from the population and any effect that the sometimes whimsical nature of electoral majorities can have.  Hamilton returns to this point later in the writing and further highlights the importance of insulating the court from elected officials.

The judiciary’s lack of control over the “purse” and the “sword” (the powers of the legislature and executive branches respectively) is the first point as to how the court carries a lack of true power in the balance of powers (Hamilton, 1999, p. 433).  Thus, the federalists viewed the judiciary as the least likely threat to the “rule of law” and the Constitution.  The insulation of the courts from the legislature and, subsequently, the people puts the court in the position of best executing their duties as final arbiters of the intent of the Constitution and the framers.   Without the power to exert force of either monetary or military means, the judiciary was deemed the most suitable branch to have a little wider berth when it comes to their own Constitutional powers.  Essentially, the judiciary’s own weakness made it the safest branch to endow the power of judging the applicability of laws to the intent of the Constitution (Hamilton, 1999, p. 433-434).

Thispoint is of fundamental importance when analyzing the constitutionality of judicial review.  The power of the Court to determine whether statutes and laws are in adherence to the enumeration and spirit of the Constitution is, in reality, the Supreme Court’s only “true” power.  Hamilton (1999) illustrates the marriage between the judiciary and the concept of judicial review, with emphasis on its permanency when he wrote:

“For I agree that ‘there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.’  And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments…nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security” (p. 434). 

 

He further emphasized this point by stating how the judiciary, and its independence, was keenly important to the effectiveness of a “limited Constitution” (Hamilton, 1999, p. 434). 

As the concept of checks and balances was developed, the judicial branch was bestowed the responsibility of being the last line of protection, with respect to the legislative and executive branches.  The presidential veto was the first check on the legislature; and the legislature’s ability to make law (and supersede executive veto through a supermajority) was the initial check on the executive branch.  Hamilton all but defined the court’s responsibility to review the actions of the other two branches as judicial review.  With regard to the judiciary’s ability to restrain the legislature (and the executive branch as well) through judicial review, Hamilton (1999) stated clearly that to “deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid” (p. 435).  When there is a question as to whether legislative laws encroach upon the superior law of the Constitution; leaving that determination to the legislature itself would, in essence, be akin to allowing a person charged with a crime to determine his/her own guilt.  Circumstances such as this would result in the legislature gaining supremacy over the Constitution and result in a legislative tyranny.

Furthermore, Hamilton identifies the potential for a tyranny of the majority and the role the judiciary plays in preventing such a situation.  He states that judicial independence “may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in society” (Hamilton, 1999, p. 438).  The direct connection between the legislature and the people may permit a situation in which the legislature could suborn an action of tyranny by the majority onto the minority of the population.  In such a circumstance, it is the role of the judicial branch to act as a “check upon the legislative body in passing them” (Hamilton, 1999, p. 438).  Hamilton (1999) stated the point rather eloquently when he wrote:

“Considerate men of every description ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts; as no man can be sure that he may not be tomorrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer today.  And every man must now feel that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress” (p. 438).

 

Ultimately, the courts would act as temperance for the whimsical nature of populism that can exert a somewhat substantial amount of stress on the other two branches of government (even more so presently than in the era the Constitution was designed).  This judicial temperance would protect both the minority at any given point in time and the republic as a whole over time. 

From this point, Hamilton reiterated the importance of permanency of those who occupy the bench.  He pointed out that the “inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution…can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission” (Hamilton, 1999, p. 439).  The link between the ability of the judiciary to interpret constitutionality and permanency of position is once again stressed by Hamilton’s (1999) identifying how much study and learnedness on the part of the court members would be required “to avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts” (p. 439).  The framers were well aware of the limited number of people qualified to have and/or obtain the knowledge necessary (and the time it would take to accumulate such knowledge) to properly populate the courts.  To turn over judges on temporary commissions would effectively impinge upon the judiciary’s ability to be filled with the most qualified judges.  Hamilton also addressed Article III, section 1 of the Constitution’s provision that states that compensation for service on the Supreme Court may not be “diminished during their Continuance in Office” (Ducat, 2009, p. D6).  This provision is a further endeavor by the framers to remove the judiciary from control by the legislature.

In total, Federalist #78 serves as an illustration of the importance of judicial independence; an independence that must be maintained from the two opposing branches of government and from the people.  Hamilton emphasized the importance of the judiciary in preserving and protecting the Constitution and the republic it established by removing it as far as possible from the influence of politics as a whole. 

An article in the New York Times brought to mind a common argument against judicial review and in direct opposition to how Hamilton seemed to view the duty of the court.  The article was authored by Stanley Fish, a former chairman of the English department at Duke University and a professor of law at Florida International University.  In his article, Fish posed the question (among others) as to whether judicial review was a legitimate action of the court; the question was in a series entitled “Thirty Questions for Alito.”  It was not the question in general that was of interest; however, it was the basis of the question which seemed most curious.  The foundation used in the article for the (potential) illegitimacy of judicial review was that of democracy.  The implication seems to be that Marshall merely fabricated the concept of judicial review and that the concept’s nature is undemocratic.  It would seem at least relatively apparent that in reviewing Federalist #78 one could conclude that the concept of judicial review was not foreign to the framers of the Constitution.

Fish states specifically that one “objection to judicial review has been that it is undemocratic because the decisions of democratically elected officials are overturned by jurists who have been appointed for life and who are, therefore, unaccountable to the judgments and desires of their fellow citizens” (Fish, 2006, Thirty Questions…).  Clearly, the Constitution created a republic and not a democracy.  In fact, the design of the Constitution seems very much intended for a dual purpose; prevent a tyranny of government and, likewise, prevent a tyranny of democracy.  Hamilton’s writings in Federalist #78 are rather explicit in relaying the ideas that the judiciary was formulated as the ultimate protector of the Constitution from the other two branches of government and was also devised in such a way in which the justices would be insulated from democracy.  It is certainly true that judicial review it is not a power explicitly granted by the Constitution, but neither is Social Security or the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Federalist #78 gives a detailed insight into the minds of the framers when constructing the concept of the judicial branch in the Constitution.  If it is assumed that Hamilton’s sentiments were shared by the framers, then clearly judicial review was intended.  One might even wonder how much of a role the Supreme Court would really play in the balance of powers if not for judicial review.  Hamilton solidly established the idea that the court was intended to be more than a mere “rubber stamp” for the legislative and executive branches.  The article brings focus to what is an often misunderstood function of the judiciary and Hamilton gave specific examples as to why it must act as supreme interpreter of the Constitution.

The applicability of this writing is just as timeless as the Constitution itself.  The Federalist Papers as a whole give us insight into the meaning and intention of the Constitution and help to guide our understanding of the debate that took place in both writing it and in its ratification.  Federalist #78 is the basis from which the power of judicial review was established by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison and the reasons for which it is necessary.  Hamilton also describes the importance of lifetime appointments to the bench and, essentially, how the judiciary was designed to insulate the Court and the republic from the pitfalls of pure democracy. 

The argument as to whether the concept of judicial review is truly “Judicial Interpretation” or “Judicial Activism” remains unanswered.  However, the difference between the two seems to be in the eye of the beholder.  For example, a proponent of the pro-life position may view Roe v. Wade as activism or “legislating from the bench” while a pro-choice advocate may view the same case as solid, common sense interpretation.  The Supreme Court, with the very same justices on the bench, can decide in two different cases and make one group happy in the first while inciting cries of judicial activism from the very same group in the second.  It would be foolish to say that the Court has never overstepped its bounds; however, it would be reasonable to conclude that, of the three branches it has done so the least.  Perhaps it is the high profile nature of many of the Court’s decisions that give it such a dubious reputation. 

It is important to maintain awareness of its autonomy from the people and the Supreme Court’s more direct relationship with the Constitution itself which places it in the position of making both sides of the political spectrum unhappy at varying times.  That is seemingly its intended role; to be above the reproach of the electorate through either the means of legislative or executive action.  The Supreme Court, unlike politicians who often find themselves torn between the rule of law and re-election, is elevated above the politics of the present and placed in the precarious position of defending the history of the Constitution and ensuring its future.

 

 

 

References:

Ducat, Craig R.  (2009). Constitutional Interpretations, Volume I: Powers of Government, Ninth    Edition.  Boston, MA:  Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Fish, Stanley (January 9, 2006).  “Thirty Questions for Alito.”   The New York Times.  Retrieved from:  http://www.lexisnexis.com.libproxy.troy.edu/lnacui2api/results/          docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T13683994800&format=            GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T13683994803&cisb=22            _T13683994802&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=23&nodeStateId=291266            01en_US2E9A18CFF75C44F286221C9F8600BB98,1&docsInCategory=32&csi=6742&            docNo=13

Hamilton, Alexander (1999).  Federalist #78.  New York, NY: New American Library, Penguin   Putnam, Inc.

Poverty: are we treating the disease or just the symptom?

                Poverty is an all important topic in America today.  In fact, there has been considerable conversation about it since LBJ declared “war on poverty” in 1964; however, beyond the typical rhetoric that poverty is bad and people cannot be left to die in the street nothing is really seriously discussed.  If one argues that entitlements are ineffective, inefficient, and just plain theft they are castigated as being hateful, greedy, or insensitive.  But, with all the spending which has taken place over the last 50 years, what do we really have to show for it?  Are we spending money trying to cure the symptom instead of the disease?  It seems likely with government’s proclivity towards throwing good money at bad “solutions” that we are ultimately ignoring that which causes poverty; all so feelings are spared and political cover is well preserved.

                Entitlements are necessary?  Let us look at the numbers.  President Lyndon B. Johnson, in all his glory, declares war on poverty in 1964.  In 1968, the first publication of a poverty report by the Census Bureau is published; at the time the poverty rate is approximately 13% and the beginning estimate from 1950 is 22%.  Good work LBJ?  Not so fast, Scooter.  The poverty rate had been descending steadily before the “war on poverty” began and continued its descent until a trough in 1969.  However, if you just cannot help but want to give LBJ credit for some of that decline, fair enough—from the time the “war” was declared to the trough saw a reduction from a level of approximately 17% down to the 12% level.  Hoorah for government spending!!!!!  So, after 50 years of enormous and blossoming entitlement spending to eliminate poverty what is the poverty rate now?  Drum roll, please—more than 15%.  Hmmmm…that was rather anti-climactic wasn’t it?

                I have it!  Maybe poverty is up, but I bet all this socialism has closed the income gap!   Wrong again, Scooter!  Since the late 1960s, income inequality has been rising quite impressively.  So, why is it that after trillions of dollars having been spent in the name of poverty; are the poverty numbers really not improved since about 1967?  Could it be that in our fervor over poverty we have misdiagnosed the condition?  I suspect that, outside of some people who are legitimately (yes, I said it) handicapped, people often continue to be poor for the same reason rich people tend to get richer:  they keep doing precisely what it was that made them that way in the first place. 

                Our society not only accepts less effort and apathy with regard to personal responsibility; we incentivize it.  If bad behavior is without consequence, you can be assured it will be repeated; if you give out cash prizes for it, it will really be repeated.  Don’t believe me?  Test it out on your kids.  Every time your child hits another child, give them a candy bar or some other reward; I bet your kid will be hitting other children with lightning speed and efficiency in no time at all!  Reverse your reward system and dis-incentivize that behavior and it will (perhaps less quickly) disappear…unless your child is a sociopath then you should have just taken my word for it.  In essence, that is what we have done as a nation; we have told people that not trying is good enough…that working on excuses can be equally or more profitable than actual production.  We have lied to ourselves and to those who feed at the government trough trapping them in a slavish-type relationship with government.  There is no success in a lack of effort nor can this situation continue in perpetuity. 

                Sadly, by subsidizing a lack of effort we relegate those who truly cannot earn for themselves to a life of poverty and squalor.  Handicapped people often live in poor conditions, so lazy people can comfortably watch Jerry Springer and Maury Povich.  But, we all know that is not the real reason…the real reason is so the aristocrats that loom over us from D.C. can continue to earn votes in exchange for other’s wealth.  Yet, as long as they have “good intentions” their failures, waste, lies, and theft will be excused.  Unfortunately, those in the ruling class do not have to live out the consequences of their actions; that is suffered most severely by the poor they claim to champion.  This makes the leaders we choose the most despicable kind of parasite.

What Exactly is Liberty?

 

           However intuitive an idea that freedom may seem, it appears that it is a rather difficult one to completely conceptualize.  In fact, most people claim to want to be free, but are vehemently resistant to that which comprises liberty.  So, what does it mean to be free or, more appropriately, what does it mean to live in a free society?  This is, I believe, the ultimate question of societal development; and one that has been quite elusive for most generations of humans. 

            James Madison noted in 1792 that “Although all men are born free, and all nations might be so, yet too true it is, that slavery has been the general lot of the human race.”  Madison’s words were quite spot on in this observation.  Regardless of the commonly held belief that slavery was, perhaps, a uniquely American and specifically white tradition, the truth is that humans have always sought to place their fellow man in servitude.  However, servitude comes in many forms, albeit the economic form is the most focused upon, it is not the only type of servitude.  The servitude I wish to focus on in this brief writing is that of the social form. 

            Both sides of the ideological “aisle” believe that they have the key to engineering a more perfect society…that if they could only make people behave the way they believe is right, then society could finally be righteous and operate in perfect harmony.  Whether these social engineers operate from an elected position, a bureaucratic one, a pulpit, or an educational institution is irrelevant.  What is relevant is their fundamental belief that if other individuals are not free to act or behave of their own free will, society will be better off and subsequently so will said individual.  This is not freedom, nor is it liberty.  Instead it is servitude.  It is the idea that one person should have a claim on another’s life. 

            Imagine for a moment the liberal progressive who stands in staunch support of a woman’s right to make choices for her own body while simultaneously holding that people should not be able to determine how it is best to employ the fruits of their own body’s labors (which is their earnings).  Now take the traditional conservative who believes that guns do not kill people; however, they can seem quite certain that casinos make people gamble, liquor stores make people into drunks, and prostitutes make people have sex.  Is this likeness in the subversion of one’s fellow citizens unique to liberals or conservatives…or perhaps it is a Republican and Democratic phenomenon?  No, it is not unique.  It is, however, a common human behavior. 

            To truly discover and enjoy freedom, we must all be able to accept one fundamental truth:  freedom is uncomfortable at times.  If there does not exist a point in time in our society in which each of us are made uncomfortable by the actions of our fellow citizens then freedom has eluded us.  For example, there is no need for a First Amendment to protect popular speech—by definition popular speech needs no protection.  We must accept that people have the right to say stupid things, believe absurd things, and act in ways which we might not condone or endorse.  Additionally, as free people we always reserve the right to call their words, ideas, and actions stupid.   We do not, under any definition of a free society, have the right to legislate their words, thoughts, or actions out of existence; lest we hold it acceptable for them to do the same to us once the political winds shift.

U.S. Foreign Relations with Russia: Is the “Soviet Bear” really dead or just hibernating?

*What follows is an academic paper I wrote in October of 2012 which has some interesting background facts on Putin and the state of Russian politics.  Additionally, I feel compelled to point out that I had a much firmer grasp on foreign policy than the Obama administration.  I am unsure, however, whether having an edge on the Obama administration is truly something worth bragging about.

 

              We live as a part of a highly dynamic world; ever in flux, with new potential challenges and rewards just around every corner.  It is the simple complexity of our world that creates difficulties in determining the right path to take and, often, keeps the US in a reactionary mode in dealing with problems abroad.  However, there are keys to unlocking the future, and steps that may be taken to best predict the next great challenge(s) our nation faces.  Understanding where we have been can often shed light on that which we are headed for; just as many disciplines of study, understanding the foreign affairs of the past positions the US to best accomplish the goals for the future.  The US is in a unique global position which affords us and our allies a certain level of security, while simultaneously providing great incentive to those who would wish to occupy our position in the global hierarchy.  There are no simple answers for determining our next great challenges, just as there were no guarantees of predicting recent history.  Still, we must persevere in obtaining that all-elusive truth of what it is exactly we do face and not always dwell on that which we wish we were facing.

            There are potentially innumerable threats lurking in the coming years; but there are signs that point to one of the next great foreign policy challenges being one we are rather familiar with:  Russia.  For those that clearly remember the Cold War and the fear inherent of a pending nuclear disaster, such as the Cuban Missile crisis, cynicism towards the remnants of the Soviet power would be natural.  This is a rather likely apprehension towards a foe, suddenly turned ‘friend,’ which was handed from one generation to the next; down to those of us who remember new global maps on a yearly basis in high school as the tapestry of Soviet power unraveled at the seams.  However, there is an old adage ‘that just because you are paranoid, does not mean they are not after you’; and this is an important distinction. 

            Recent, post-Cold War changes in Russia give a certain level of credibility to the idea that Russia may be the Soviet bear in a state of hibernation rather than a fledging new democracy with similar goals as the US.  It is incumbent upon us to understand the recent changes shaping Russia’s domestic and foreign prerogatives and apply that to the not-too-distant history of conflict and antagonism between the US and Russia.  Next, we must make the effort to understand the state of the Russia and place into perspective what options the people and their leaders may have; with a particular focus on the preeminent leader of the former Soviet core, Vladimir Putin.  What strategic moves and alliances are the leaders of Russia making and nurturing and what does that indicate for the future?  Finally, and most importantly, we should reflect upon our own foreign policy of recent years and how we are likely to engage Russia in the future. 

It is from these considerations that we may be able to predict potential situations of conflict in our ongoing relations with Russia and what appears to be a growing divide between our two nations.  After gaining an understanding of where we stand we are much better prepared to gain an impression of where we are going.  Imagine the advantage, to not only our nation, but to the world if we might actually be able to foster friendship in the face of pending conflict.

There seems little necessity in belaboring the events of the Cold War except to highlight the, often times, monolithic nature of the Soviet threat to the US and the world.  What does bear some examination is the political, economic, and social environment of Russia in the years since the Soviet collapse.  From the ashes of dictatorial governing under the Soviet regime came the rise of what seemed to be a new democratic state, eager to reenter the global community.  It was thought that post-Soviet Russia would embrace the concepts of a market-economy and, in it, discover a new era of prosperity for its people.  This, however, was not to be the case. 

Although the new leader of the independent Russian state, Boris Yeltsin, advocated democracy and capitalism, Michael McFaul (2000) points out the general lack of understanding in Russia as to what that exactly meant; particularly after spending the better part of a century under a command economy (pp. 51).  In fact, McFaul (2000) points out that there was less than a consensus across the country in precisely what economic and political system was desired; and Yeltsin came to the quick realization, not unlike other reformers and revolutionaries, that toppling a system was much easier than establishing one (pp. 52).  Yeltsin, and other leaders new to the concepts of democracy and capitalism, found great difficulty in making the transition from the iron fisted will in which communist leaders could rule to a free system of trade and governing. 

One of the primary factors contributing to the economic decay which, would make true reform impossible, was the ascendancy of the oligarchs.  Under Yeltsin, concern with the prospect that the “population might soon have a change of heart and turn its back on reform…decided to accelerate it [privatization], selling off state resources and enterprises at little or no charge (Goldman, 2004, pp. 35).  Goldman (2004) points out that through the “Loans for Shares” program Russian banks ended up being the direct beneficiaries of the auctions they were tasked with operating in order to privatize state controlled resources (pp. 35).  The result was an oligarchy based system that was more representative of old aristocracies than free market democracies. 

Yeltsin’s tenure also saw another great challenge.  In his attempt to stimulate a new free market system, the political system was all but ignored (McFaul, 2000, pp. 53).  Yeltsin’s inaction in making sure the political underpinnings were in place to support a free market resulted in a highly fragmented polity.  Furthermore, Garnett (1997) indicates the continued use of previous Soviet institutions and officials served to exacerbate the political problems faced during that period as Ministers of the government and military leaders took it upon themselves to determine their own best course of action (pp. 64-65).  Instead of a legacy of revolution and bravery in overturning a communist regime that survived for over 70 years, Yeltsin’s legacy at the time he left office was of a man who left Russia in worse economic and political turmoil than when he assumed power.  It is noteworthy that he also left the people of Russia, and the world, with Vladimir Putin; leaving us to wonder whether Owen Harries (1989) questions about the trend towards freedom in the Soviet Union (now Russia) was accurately assessing just another example of an interlude of freedom in a culture with a history of dictatorship (pp. 45).

Vladimir Putin, a former member of the KGB, ascended to the position of Prime Minister by appointment from Yeltsin after being an effective chief of domestic security (Knight and Blair, 2000, pp. 35).  Also, prior to being named Prime Minister, Putin also served as the head of Yeltsin’s Security Council at a time when Yeltsin was being threatened with impeachment; a position from which Putin was able to effectively intimidate the parliament and blackmail the prosecutor-general (Knight and Blair, 2000, pp. 35).  Shortly after being named Prime Minister, Putin was named as Yeltsin’s successor to the presidency, a title which he would maintain after a subsequent election.  Knight and Blair (2000) point out that in a time which Russian citizens valued order over freedom, Putin fit the bill rather nicely as he had “built an image as a tough, aggressive, anti-Western super-patriot”; exhibiting his strength in his handling of Chechnya and in his view towards the rest of the world (pp. 36).  However, as long as the people are behind him, it is easy to maintain the appearance of freedom and democratic rule to the nations of the world.

Although there is plentiful evidence of a Russian system that is fundamentally flawed and thus ripe with opportunity for anti-Western antagonism, the truly relevant facts lie in what America has and will do to prevent a rerun of the half century period following WWII.  There is no easy answer as to what amount of conflict avoidance is within US control and it is clearly beyond US foreign policy makers to dictate the path the citizens or government of Russia might take; however, we can work towards not only understanding, but accepting the potential for a foreign relations disaster that a reactionary Russian government might mean to the US and our global allies and interests. 

The problems with American post-Cold War policy towards Russia arose almost as quickly as the great power had fallen.  As the Soviet monolith was crumbling, President Bush and his administration were caught in between two philosophical concepts: 1) work to shore up and stabilize the existing Soviet structure and 2) abandon the established relationship with Gorbachev and embrace Yeltsin (Cox, 1994, pp. 639).  This seems to have been a battle of philosophies within the president and his administration between realism, which more easily permits dealing with autocracies to further the national interests, and idealism which compels us to see a greater good to be had in following principles over pragmatism.  This period of indecision left the first Bush administration open to severe criticism over the US’s management of the Soviet implosion and, among other factors, lead to the election of Bill Clinton into the White House.

Simultaneous with the division between upper policy makers and their would-be replacements was a media frenzy of the developments of freedom in the Soviet Union and its collapse which opened the doors for the people of Russia to engage in a new destiny of freedom and cooperation.  It is not difficult to remember the sentiment of the American people at the time that the greatest threat to our own lives had finally given way to a new era of freedom that seemed inevitable in the wake of the Soviet collapse.  This, coupled with the new rise of an idealistic view of the prerogative of the Russian people on the part of foreign policy elites, gives further evidence to the flaw inherent in ignoring cultural relativism.  Idealism holds somewhat to the assumption that it is the leaders of a nation that are reflected in the policies of the state only, and ignores any relevance that it just may be the philosophies of the people of different states which are in conflict.  In other words, the people of an enemy state are inherently good; it is only their leaders who promulgate any dissention between the two countries.  Of course, hoping that tensions, between the US and a once equally strong adversary the likes of the Soviet Union, will be diminished organically is not bad; instead, it may just lack insight.

The Clinton administration took over the dealings with the new Russian federation with zeal towards propping up reform movements and guiding the move towards a free market democracy (Cox, 1994, pp. 646).  This goal of nurturing Russia into a mirror image ally was pressed by Clinton’s primary advisor on Russian affairs, Strobe Talbott, and would eventually fall short.  There were several obstacles toward shoring up Russian political and economic interests Cox (1994) points out, not the least of which was a continuing conflict between former Soviet states and the remnant of their oppressors (pp. 647).  Additionally, Yeltsin even joined into the resurgent anti-western sentiments of the Russian people and establishment in the face of US attempts to fast-track the Russian state into line with western (particularly American) thinking (Cox, 1994, pp. 648). 

The hopes of a fresh, new relationship with an old rival had fundamentally dissipated with the inability for Russian leaders to enact what they had promised; a free Russia filled with hope for a better future.  Instead, by the end of the nineties, the Russian economy stood at less than half the capacity of the anemic Soviet economy that was revolted against (McFaul, 2000, pp. 45).  Arguably, the increased contention between the US and Russia was (at least partially) due to the appearance of the US micro-managing the reforms being attempted in Russia, thus resulting in a retreat from the west by the Russians.  McNamara and Blight (2001) later warned of the folly of any humiliation, and how it would serve as an impetus towards conflict, when they wrote of the factors which lead to a second rising of Germany in an attempt at world dominance which culminated in the ascension of Hitler’s Third Reich and the devastation that followed (pp. 68).  Although well-intentioned in not wanting to miss an opportunity at developing a strong ally in Russia, the Clinton administration may have pushed too far, too fast; leaving the Russian leadership appearing a bit impotent to the world at large (at least from their own perspective).  President Clinton did experience some victories, but the results of Russian reform were largely out of his hands.

However, a new era of US-Russia relations was soon to begin with the election of George W. Bush to the presidency and the appointment of Vladimir Putin to lead Russia.  As the new decade began, antagonism was reestablished between the two states.  The Bush administration took the Russian leadership “to task for arm sales to Iran” and the continued fighting in Chechnya (Bremmer and Zalavsky, 2001, pp. 12).  The rhetoric would begin to change to potential reconciliation with the events of September 11, 2001.  The US and Russia would find new common ground in the war on terrorism as both had an interest in reducing the destabilizing effects of terrorism.  The new found partnership between Bush and Putin in a common goal elevated feelings that long term friendship and reconciliation over past conflict may be possible.  Albeit far from perfect, the immediate years following September 11, 2001 seemed to have ushered in true cooperation between the two countries and, perhaps most importantly, between their respective leaders (Gladkyy, 2003, pp. 7). 

As the decade moved on, there was a slow trend of regression from cooperation to heightened antipathy which came to a head (of sorts) with the Russian invasion of Georgia in August, 2008.  This invasion seemed to provide the Russian leader with a significant amount of information.  First, timing the invasion during the Beijing Olympics, provided significant cover for the action from gaining widespread media coverage (Maginnis, 2008).  Second, it seemed to test the resolve of the US, particularly while still under the leadership of a president with severely diminished political capital.  At the same time, coinciding with a new presidential election season in America gave Putin the opportunity to test the waters as to what kind of response President Bush’s successor may have to Russian aggression.  Georgia was a valued US ally amongst the former Soviet bloc countries, and our inability to respond outside of expressing disappointment gave Putin all the answers he would need.  A weak response from President Bush and, at best, a muted response from the two men who wished to replace Bush was evidence that the US had shifted its focus away from Russia and onto more pressing concerns; such as the Middle East and the economic crisis at home. 

Furthermore, as Maginnis (2008) pointed out, President Saakashvili believed the invasion of Georgia additionally served as a notice to all neighboring “former Soviet-era satellite states” that “western orientation” will not be responded to kindly.  This is plausible and harkens back to time in which Leonid Brezhnev enacted similar warnings so as to prevent any wholesale withdrawal from socialism and Soviet control (Wittkopf, et al, 2008, pp. 151). 

When taking this period of the Bush administration into perspective it seems as if Putin may have been executing an almost perfect game of “three card monte” on the US.  When encountered with criticism from Bush, Putin saw an opportunity (following 9/11) to endear the Russian state to the US and build a feeling of cooperation; all the while continuing the same activity that was originally considered unacceptable.  When Putin sensed a weak moment in US foreign policy toward the end of President Bush’s second term, he took the opportunity to test the resolve of the international community, the US leadership, and perhaps foreshadow a future where expansionism would once again be the preferred tool of the Russian leadership.  For example, four years since the invasion of Georgia and the Six Point Ceasefire Agreement that ended the conflict and there remains approximately 10,000 Russian troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia; representing “20 percent of Georgia’s internationally recognized territory and is in direct violation” of the treaty brokered by (then) French President Nicolas Sarkozy (Coffey, 2012, “Georgia and Russia…”).

During the Bush administration the focus, what was left of it anyway, came off of traditional intelligence concerns and was focused on a shift in overall defense preparedness and intelligence acquisition.  Wittkopf, et al (2008) indicates an overall reduction in human intelligence, preferring increased technological sources, as a contributing factor for the attacks of September 11, 2001 (pp. 399).  Although, President Bush sought to reverse this post-Cold War trend of decreasing human intelligence sources; it can be safely estimated that much of those new resources have been put toward the war on terrorism.  When we add to this a wholesale realignment of the defense and intelligence community, it would be hardly imaginable that, to cope with the new and imminent threat posed by terrorist organizations, much of any remaining intelligences resources in the former Soviet bloc region would not have been either reassigned to the Middle East or exchanged for fresh, new intelligence operators; more schooled and prepared to work in the Muslim world. 

Out of fairness to the Bush administration, the choices available in making adjustments to the new course would have been considerably limited due to the response the American public had to the attacks.  Any perceived lag in government action in confronting the new enemy by either the administration or Congress could have had calamitous effects for the US.  Not only would safety have been a potential issue, but increased economic backlash (particularly during a recession beginning primarily in 2000) from citizen perceived weakness in the federal government’s ability to protect its citizens; these factors would have only worsened the situation domestically.  However, in a total restructuring, we potentially allow the urgent to outweigh the important and the increasing assertiveness, and even aggression, on the part of the Russians should serve as a stark reminder to not lose sight of any priorities. 

This poses a dilemma, not just for presidents in the near future, but for the intelligence community as well.  The shift from Cold War techniques to anti-terror strategies leaves the US with a learning curve in gaining assets that can facilitate strong intelligence; particularly challenging when dealing with a nation such as Russia, which is renowned for its capability in intelligence gathering and counterintelligence.  Granted, it would be foolish to think that the US had ever withdrawn all of its intelligence capability from the region, but it would be reasonable to assert it has diminished its capacity dramatically.  The effect of diminished intelligence would be a folly that spanned two administrations.  The initial cutback in human intelligence capacity has been attributed to the Clinton administration by then CIA director George Tenet who stated that the administration’s decision was based on too much criminal behavior and human rights abuses by assets (Limbacher, 2004, “Tenet in Slap…”).   Additionally, the Bush administration would be at fault for its seeming inability to see the potential need for solid intelligence in Russia in the near future, particularly in light of Russia’s posturing on certain issues and situations.  Seeing that in 2004, Tenet also stated it would take at least five additional years of “rebuilding our clandestine service” just to get to high enough levels to effectively fight the war on terrorism, it becomes rational to assume that other fronts might still be left relatively unmonitored (Limbacher, 2004, “Tenet in Slap…”).   These statements from Tenet not only indicate an intelligence community drawn down to anemic levels under the leadership of one president, but the replenishing of those capabilities being singularly applied by another.

Since the beginning of the Obama administration, our position toward Russian international policies has not changed remarkably from that at the end of the Bush administration.  Russia continues to be suspected of dealing heavily in weapons and even nuclear technology to nations like Iran who would generally be considered as aggressors in rhetoric (at the very least).  Additionally, our government has seemed to heed “warnings” from the Russians to not intervene in the revolution taking place in Syria; although, there was little hesitation in intervening in similar uprisings in Egypt and Libya.  Whether or not we are idealists or realists, it might be prudent to realize that Russia bases its foreign policy on realism; therefore, we must be mindful that regardless of the US view of power as a determining factor of state actions that Russia is certainly cognizant of power as an influencer in foreign affairs.  The chapter on the Obama administration has yet to be completed though; therefore, we are at the mercy of the future to some extent. 

For the foreseeable future, I would predict an increase in Putin’s desire to explore the limits as to what the US will be willing to overlook in their (Russia’s) quest to regain status in the international community.  As oil prices continue to stay high, the rich oil reserves of Russia, and the leverage they can provide diplomatically, will continue to be a growing factor in the equation.  It seems reasonable that, if it is truly Putin’s goal to begin reestablishing a Soviet Union style empire, that former satellite states will be targeted for reincorporation into the federation.  Perhaps an initial move into the smaller satellites such as Azerbaijan, Armenia, Estonia, and Latvia with a vision set on bigger prizes such as Ukraine.  It will be interesting to see what course Putin may take in the event a new president is elected in November of this year; a new leader can often mean new limits and the campaign rhetoric certainly indicates a contrast between the president and his challenger.

All the military underpinnings still exist that could take Russia from a country in economic despair to a formidable military powerhouse in a short period of time.  The US would be wise to keep close tabs on Russian alliances such as Iran, Syria, and China (particularly the latter for its shared communist tradition).  All three are impressive allies in the region for Russia, although it seems less likely that China would wish to abandon its economic boom for another stroll down the lane of economic isolation that would be likely if tensions escalated too much. 

The executive branch must stay engaged and not be too narrow sighted as to the threats of the day.  Cabinet members, aides, advisors, and the Joint Chief’s will all play a pivotal role (regardless of whose administration) in managing the potential Russian threat in the future.  Unfortunately, predicting how these players will act and react is difficult.  The group of people making up this foreign policy core can change dramatically every four years and I would assume any direct threats may still be at least a decade away. 

Additionally, responsibility must fall upon Congress as a check on executive decisions, particularly in the ultra-polarized political climate we are presently faced with; however, those members in Congress that sit on intelligence committees must act as honest brokers for, if ever there was a “water’s edge,” this would be it.  Fortunately, we can count on the military industrial complex to assist in these oversight and monitoring activities, as there would be tremendous benefit if the Cold War was to come out of thaw.  However, there has been what I would assess as lag in media response to this reemerging threat.  This lack of media interest drives the (perhaps unintended) apathy of the common citizen in not having any electoral focus on this matter.  We are, as citizens, far too consumed with the specter of terrorism; thus illustrating the often times singular, limited focus of Americans on issues of foreign policy.

Certainly, the exact details of whatever unfolds in the coming years between Russia and the US will be heavily dependent on the leadership of the two states.  Seeing that Russia’s leadership has been relatively static over the last dozen years, the variables will arise from those leaders chosen in America.  Just as different presidents tended to usher in variations in foreign policy towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War; the presidents and their appointees will be quite instrumental in determining the outcome of the growing struggle between the two historic foes.  Just in the current campaign we can see a divergence of position on relations with Putin’s Russia, pointing towards a continued application of the hero-in-history model.  Subsequently, those choices are made through a rational decision making model; however, it is instrumental rationality which separates one president’s vision from another.  Idealist presidents tend towards idealist solutions, while those presidents with a strong core in realism are likely to view the very same challenges in often completely different ways.  The challenge to our presidents arises from the fact that it is impossible to know which strategy is ultimately right until the game is over.

 

References

Bremmer, Ian and Zaslavsky, Alexander (2001).  “Bush and Putin’s Tentative Embrace,” World   Policy Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Winter, 2001/2002), pp. 11-17.  Retrieved from:      http://www.jstor.org/stable/40209773

Coffey, Luke (2012).  “Georgia and Russia:  The Occupation Too Many Have Forgotten,”            Heritage Foundation; May 31, 2012.  Retrieved from:  http://blog.heritage.    org/2012/05/31/georgia-and-russia-the-occupation-too-many-have-forgotten/

Cox, Michael (1994).  “The Necessary Partnership?  The Clinton Presidency and Post-Soviet        Russia,” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 70,            No. 4 (Oct., 1994), pp. 635-658.  Retrieved from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/2624551

Garnett, Sherman (1997).  “Russia’s Illusory Ambitions,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 76, No. 2 (Mar. – Apr., 1997), pp. 61-76.  Retrieved from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/20047937

Gladkyy, Oleksandr (2003).  “American Foreign Policy and U.S. Relations with Russia and          China after 11 September,” World Affairs, Vol. 166, No. 1 (Summer 2003), pp. 3-23.         Retrieved from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/20672674

Goldman, Marshall I. (2004).  “Putin and the Oligarchs,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 83, No. 6 (Nov. –             Dec., 2004), pp. 33-44.  Retrieved from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/20034135

Harries, Owen (1989).  “Is the Cold War Really Over?”  National Review, November 10, 1989;    pp. 41-45.  Retrieved from:  ProQuest Central.

Knight, Amy and Ruble, Blair A. (2000).  “The Two Worlds of Vladimir Putin,” The Wilson         Quarterly (1976-), Vol. 24, No. 2 (Spring, 2000), pp. 32-41.  Retrieved from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/40260036

Limbacher, Carl (2004).  “Tenet in Slap at Clinton CIA Cutbacks,” Free Republic, February 5,     2004.  Retrieved from:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1072169/posts

Maginnis, Robert (2008).  “Russian Invasion of Georgia is an East-West Tipping Point,” Human   Events; August 8, 2008.  Retrieved from:   http://www.humanevents.com/2008/08/11/            russian-invasion-of-georgia-is-an-eastwest-tipping-point/

McFaul, Michael (2000).  “Yeltsin’s Legacy,” Wilson Quarterly (1976-), Vol. 24, No. 2 (Spring,   2000), pp. 42-47, 50-58.  Retrieved from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/40260037

 McNamara, Robert S. and Blight, James G. (2001).  :In from the Cold:  A new Approach to        Relations with Russia and China,” World Policy Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Spring, 2001),    pp. 67-77.  Retrieved from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/40209733

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

Government is Force: The Uncomfortable Truth People Wish to Avoid.

It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.

—Ayn Rand

            Our society speaks of things like social justice as if it were a victimless activity.  As though giving to someone deemed “less fortunate” entails only the act giving without the taking.  Where then does this magical manna come from if not from another citizen?  Clearly it comes from someone who is rich or simply has what some deem to be “too much,” right?  Let’s assume it does, is the moral righteousness of theft based on the size of the victim’s bank account?  If that is in fact the case, should not most white collar crimes be considered righteous?  Or, for example, if you carjack a Maserati are you not merely taking what is not deserved by the owner of that car? 

            The rich are hardly the only ones who are victims of our entitled society; anyone who falls into some sort of minority can find themselves targets of our burgeoning tyranny of democracy.  If the limits on individual rights to property are up for a vote, then where do the limits of the state lay?  In a society which justifies activity by a majority (more aptly, plurality) opinion, no limits exist; instead, the law is a shifting tide dictated by mob behavior and “popular” ideas.  I can take your money, your property, and (more poignantly accurate) your very life as long as I can convince enough of my fellow citizens to direct the government to forcibly remove those things from you at the point of a gun. 

You say that no one is taking another’s life, but only their money; excess money at that?  How is it exactly that we earn money?  Time!  Time of our life spent producing, thinking, building, growing, and teaching; and by endorsing the government confiscation and redistribution of people’s money we are very much endorsing the taking of people’s lives; one hour at a time.  You cannot ask another for $10 without considering that the money you ask for represents a portion of their life spent earning (assuming they have earned that money).  Likewise, you cannot empower government to separate them from that same $10 by force without considering that government has taken the time that money represents from them. 

The cold reality that people wish to ignore is that if that person gets paid $10/hr. then your government has exercised your desire to steal that hour from them; forcibly take those minutes, those breaths, and those heartbeats from them as if they rightfully belong to you or someone else.  That activity relegates that producer to the role of slave and you take on the role of slave owner.  What gives us the right to prey on our fellow citizens?  Nothing!  Still, we try to justify it with absurd notions of social justice and fairness.  Those who are comfortable voting the confiscation of other’s money are no different than the pimp on the street corner preying on their hookers or the mobster running a protection scheme on businesses.  Try as we may to justify our actions as assistance or some altruistic heroism; we are merely common thieves who ply our trade at the ballot box because we lack the courage to steal from others in person.

 

 

The Fallacy of Greed

 

Greed…what a fun word!  It is that invisible cause of all of society’s problems, right?  Have an older car or smaller house than your neighbor?  Don’t beat yourself up, they are obviously greedy.  Textile manufacturing is now (predominantly) overseas?  Duh…just a greedy capitalist.  Walmart not forking over that mythical thing called a “living wage?”  They are blatantly exhibiting their own greed.  She has too much; he has too little…all byproducts of American greed, right? 

Effort is good, the old college try they used to say; but don’t you dare actually succeed because clearly you have morphed into just a common greedy piece of trash.  Here is an interesting question then:  If, in fact, a person who develops a product for which millions wish to pay for is greedy; what do we call a person who is willing to live for nothing off the labors of others?  Ah, I remember now, we call them victims of American greed.  Instead might I suggest we call them greedy victimizers of Americans; merely a semantic difference, I am sure.  

The convenience of greed lay in its ability to be arbitrarily blamed for anything.  Those on the left have made careers playing on peoples’ petty jealousy through use of the word greed.  People have justified the taking of others’ property because of greed; however, greed cannot be proven and, perhaps more importantly, cannot be disproven.  How does one combat an accusation of greed?  They cannot, which is why it is such a powerful tool of the politician to ensure support from those who Bastiat noted “wish to live at the expense of others.” 

Legalized theft and redistribution gains its mandate from this notion of greed, but how do we define greed exactly?  If greed is to be defined as the desire and effort to take something from people which is not theirs, then who is greedy?  Can we rightfully call Steve Jobs greedy because he created things which many were willing to trade money for?  Or would that title be more properly attributed to the 23 year old which, instead of practicing responsibility, decides to live off the welfare system?  I would say the latter; our president would likely say the former.  A person who makes a living at the point of a gun is, in my estimation, greedy.  There is little difference between someone who is able-bodied and living (almost) exclusively off the taxpayer than there is a common gangster.  Both prey off of those unable to defend themselves from their oppressors, the only difference is the mobster at least has the courage to do their own dirty work.    

 

 

Regulation Is Not Our Salvation

          There is much talk of regulation and the need for it in every aspect of our “dangerous capitalistic” society; however, there is seldom talk of what regulation is and of what precisely it accomplishes.  Ironically, the very people who exhibit the greatest disdain for “big business” are often the most ardent supporters of regulation (besides the big businesses themselves, of course).  Democrats, and statists of all parties, are particularly interested in imposing regulations for the stated purpose of controlling the “animal instincts” of the free market.  These are the same people who often deride big business publicly for taking advantage of consumers and keeping the “little man” down.  And this is where it becomes interesting. 

          What if I were to tell you that regulation is largely designed to do that very thing and that the politicians who both advocate and introduce regulation understand very clearly that it will remove competition by restricting new market participants?  I know, I know--many people out there will be shaking their heads in outright refusal of this assertion.  I can just hear it now:  “we need government to protect us from big corporations”; or “that’s not what the news said”; or “Obama said we deregulated too much.”  Food for thought, though:  big opponents of airline deregulation were the (big) airlines and the big opponents of trucking deregulation?...you guessed it, the (big) trucking companies.  That, by the way, is not an isolated situation.

          Now, before people start into the irrational argument that I hate all regulation or that I am an anarchist; try to refrain from acting arbitrarily dramatic, ‘cause it just ain’t true!  Here is an example of the real world scenario and why most regulation is not only supported by “big business,” but also why they (and their lobbyists) write a significant amount of the legislation. 

          Let us assume that I am a builder of houses in a small economy with a relatively static population (a miniature US, for example).  I am the only builder of houses as I have been an innovator in early house building technology.  Let us also assume I hired you to work for me as my helper and you worked your way up to foreman over some amount of time.  At this point you realize that you know everything you would need to provide the same service that I do, but feel you can do it more cheaply (because I am operating as a monopolist and thus my pricing is artificially high).  So, you strike out on your own and begin competing with me.  This does not please me for obvious reasons. 

          So, I go see the executive (president/governor) of this “state” we live and work in and I convince him that we should, for the safety of all consumers, get control of the house building market and pass some regulations so that amateur and dangerous new builders do not hurt anyone financially or physically.  The executive, not wanting his constituents hurt or angry sees great value in regulation that will control the evil capitalists (besides me, of course as I will be grandfathered in…) and will make one of his major campaign contributors happy.  He goes to the legislative branch and convinces them to draft a law; however, how can these lawmakers draft regulations about housing that will safeguard their citizens when they themselves have never built houses?  Hmmmm…Wait, they have an idea—they should approach the local expert for help in constructing these regulations.  My phone rings and I gladly accept my civic duty of drawing up regulations for housing standards so that I am guaranteed customers…I mean, so that the citizens are safe!

          Now, back to you, my only competitor; if am lucky I can build in professional fees and licensing, insurance, or even capital requirements that create a great enough obstacle to you not being able to continue in the market.  If not, I have almost guaranteed that neither of our employees will likely ever be able to afford to compete with us.   Here is the best part, though.  Having seen how well the appeal to citizens to safeguard them from “greedy profit-driven” capitalists worked out for his polling numbers; the executive decides to move on to another market segment.  Once again, this executive finds great public support (who doesn’t want to be safer) and also finds he has more campaign contributions rolling in from companies which no longer have to fear any significant competition in their field. 

          Here is the reality and the bad side of this equation.  First, capitalism in this example no longer exists (incidentally, there has not been true capitalism in the U.S. for many decades except perhaps in some isolated market segments).  The little man has been effectively “held down” and kept out of the marketplace.  Skill, pricing, or a combination of the two is no longer that which is primarily supplied by market participants; instead, the ability to navigate the political waters and afford to pay for these regulatory burdens is what determines market participation. 

          Second, the government has created a moral hazard in which the citizenry no longer feels responsible for ensuring quality in the products and services they purchase; additionally, government takes on no liability that the work they attest to (through regulatory obstacles) is of high or even good quality.  For example, if you have a house built, it will have to be approved by government inspectors on many occasions for different purposes.  However, if that house burns down later from faulty wiring that was inspected; the government that essentially told you it was safe carries no liability.  This begs a tangential question:  what is the point, exactly?

          Third, in fields that are “regulated” it has been made essentially illegal for people to work.  To license something is defined as:  the ability to grant a license to (someone or something) to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place.  If something requires a license, it is otherwise illegal—ergo, it is illegal to work and earn a living if the government does not permit you to do so.  Yet another disincentive towards working, just what we need!

          The rise in corporations over the last century is not due to not enough government.  Inversely, it is due to too much government.  I understand there is a long held belief in most people that government is there to help us, but we must get beyond misconceptions and use logic to approach questions.  Whether a politician is well-intentioned or not, regulation still results in the same thing.  Also, do not believe the hype that the Bush administration marked the biggest rollback of regulations in modern history—that could not be further from the truth.  In fact, if you are a fan of regulation, you should have a picture of “W” over your mantle right next to your picture of Obama.

          If people actually understand what the true effects of regulation are, it is likely that we will tolerate less of it.  However, I understand there is a draw in believing in wholesale regulation; the comfort of feeling like someone evil and rich is being halted on their wicked quest for world domination is probably great.  But, perception a reality does not make.  Regulation is the pet of “big business” that does not wish to compete and colorful plumage which politicians display to prove how “caring” and “egalitarian” they are; both, instead, use it largely as a tool to monopolize market segments and line their own pockets; perverting capitalism into cronyism. 

          When you consider the effectiveness of government in solving all our problems you should truly ponder why all of governments “wars” of morality such as the one on drugs and the one on poverty have only resulted in more of both.  Certainly, in the thousands of years of human history it is unlikely that humans have only recently gone bad; perhaps, we should realize that government has the anti-Midas effect of turning everything it touches into crap instead of gold.